Text

Rept of Seismic Design Review
	ML19308C386
Person / Time
Site:	Crane, Davis Besse
Issue date:	01/27/1977
From:	; TOLEDO EDISON CO.
To:	;
References
	TASK-TF, TASK-TMR NUDOCS 8001230357
	Download: ML19308C386 (56)
	v • d • e

WNh@w;hkh@I!@k!$Mhh 18dg $di$d #E.nw& n.m m n w 4

Mg mww w-M n 2 f : *; W m.shdWe % @ W Wn c

+.f".s t'

, a.wh:.t,-,n,. -s a.. w-5...gw m.n.

5[$.T,:I$$kkh3

... g h w, Y,~3..

g rv. n y.

.,.a#

~.t c

att? 1M[.b?$P:

s':$ ? '? ^ *

\\

't'

' N

..j

'YN k'.Y

') yh

$$NDghi#SOM@syfWn_hdN5M '

E q?' *h pl W*

y ;- s.

' w$ $ $ yh{$di'N.%,'M i.>.U S,:

b M N k M.l! $a@

~s s

g

" @p a s p$e@r @a g w M 3 e

s M M N MfE3EE M i M h7 M

-@.w., ang#I b#b 'n$'NY.k'$k v.w n ~ :. a m r w n m e, O ghy e 4 [. w~

4hMD9hNkd5NE$S?NNN$db@$M[1d1f9MTYNN

'h; -?;!Tik$ l$W@d If Aidhihd$$.

hj v ' N.J WD ISkBESSEjNUCEEAR;P TAJONA

~WS.9 mv.e.p&

Py%qp"j'%;g;mkp&yg%

e pwm e--a 3 -

o q

jy; y h f.q i g g

??byM f

juiOC f8 eaft

. (ff

d ! Mikitf5iserss M 5%R POBT!O5SEfSMICD'EEf,G$ltRglEWg#W$h#

4

% %p weg gf f

MIN

@gggg%

x. -

mh n,Lhf mm )

?vgaagm sww$h

s

%m.nASMRBA CF y %wev,m<

e 1M4 egw$M98w wgt e

sj.dhfA g u a@ @4mm w M Ny.

d7 9

Mi

~p,c h,g y g,p g Q;g y. b.g. e w

,4 d g> 5~ e 4

3 4m f

pen Vm.

s:.g.y;g3,sw; e;.c m%y.m rhm g.r:y v s A gj *A.%. ye(au.. g^.. py a

,. w.

Ax v

. v.. gmec

-rp.e we. ~.

w.tb5+b4;%:.w. ado;v.m$,hbx w +k Y

,5$h?$$b bk hb k

?.

hhY av s

r h.w 4: w+v kw n& Owe;y n?

w v.tm.r

v. ~

ugby,31;c ' -ing;gg.e" % p'r u;; y:r~ox s

.L.;; Y + c.&: w ~ %.w s

,1 /,

sq;;

w.n.k4J2n.u...~5 u ~ a a - n. % -

05

k. -

'S k

O

'.a. E,a s.

f r--

a

.~

l.

4)

P

'Is

.i__.

THE TOLEDO EDISON CO.

~ ~

DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 REPORT OF SEISMIC DESIGN REVIEW

(_

JANUARY 27, 1977 l..

t..,

l-f,-

I i

b h...,

e n

y ii_.

(

230 $ '

go01 a

-~

. 1 V

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Title Page 1

Table of Contents 2

List of Tables 3

List of Figures 4

p_.

i

.i__.

I I.

Introduction 7

L

~~

II.

Selection of Maximum Possible Earthquake 9

III. Selection of Horizontal Vibratory Ground 12 r

i Acceleration s_

Parametric Deconvolution of 0.20g Seismic Event 13 IV.

a i

V.

Structural Analysis 15 i-VI.

Conclusions 19 u_

References 21 beamur e-s_

i w-Ww

,.m,

~ -,-,

--w

e 1

-3

!m-LIST OF TABLES Table No.

Page w

1.

Summary of Deconvolution for Representative 23 Soil Layering 2.

Comparison of Critical Damping Values 24 3.

Comparison of Seismically Induced Base Shear 25 and Moment for Lateral Analysis t.

Deumsa 6

a ih m

e t==

.L l'

~

b f

.w

l

~

e-.

-4 i i

LIST OF' FIGURES F-Figure No, h

1.

Representative Soil Layering 26 4

2.

Effects on Deconvolution by Variation in 27

~'

Soil Layering 3.

G/G Versus Shear Strain for 28 max Soil Layering 4.

Damping Ratio Versus Shear Strain 29 for Soil Layering 5.

Comparison of Response Spectra at 30 Foundation Level for 5% Damping 6.

~

Horizontal Ground Spectra 31 0.20g Seismic Event 7.

Vertical Ground Spectra 32 0.20g Seismic Event 8.

0.20g Seismic Event 33 Horizontal Time History Spectra Envelope u_

2% and 5% Critical Damping 9.

0.20g Seismic Event 34

~~

Horizontal Time History Spectra Envelope 1% and 7% Critical Damping c.

L.,

10.

0.20g Seismic Event 35 Vertical Time History Spectra Envelope 2% and 5% Critical Damping lb-11.

0.20g Seismic Event 36 Vertical Time History Spectra Envalepe

__l 1% and 7% Critical Damping 12.

0.20g Seismic Event 37

[J[

Deconvoluted Response Spectrum at L

Foundation Level for 4% Damping

v..

wm

' bens *

'I 1.

- 'l Figure No.

Page I~

13. 0.20g Seismic Event 38 Deconvoluted Response Spectrum at Foundation Level for 7% Damping 14.

Floor Response Spectra 39 Auxiliary Building Area 6(North-South)

Elevation 623'-0" 15.

Floor Response Spectra 40 Auxiliary Building Area 7(North-South)

Elevation 643'-0" 16.

Floor Response Spectra 41 p--

Auxiliary Building Area 8(North-South)

Elevation 642'-6" 17.

Floor Response Spectra 42 Containment Vessel Elevation 808'-0" 18.

Floor Response Spectra 43 Containment Internal Structures (North-South)

[~

Elevation 653'-0" f

19.

Floor Response Spectra 44 Intake Structure (North-South)

Elevation 576'-0" u

20.

Floor Response Spectra 45 u_

Auxiliary Building Area 6(East-West)

Elevation 623'-0" P~

21. ' Floor Response Spectra 46 Auxilia ty Building Area 7(East-West)

Elevatica 643'-0" l-f 22.

Floor Response Spectra 47 Auxiliary Building Area 8(East-West)

Elevation 642'-6" 23.

Floor Response Spectra 48

-~-

Containment Internal Structures (East-West) f-Elevation 653'-0" l

24.

Floor Response Spectra 49 L-Intake Structure (East-West)

Elevation 576'-0" w

r--

j 1 '

"~~

Figure No.

Page 25.

Floor Response Spectra 50 Auxiliary Building Area 6 (Vertical)

Elevation 623'-0" 26.

Floor Response Spectra 51 Auxiliary Building Area 7 (Vertical)

Elevation 643'-0" 27.

Floor Response Spectra 52 Auxiliary Building Area 8 (Vertical)

Elevation 642'-6" 28.

Floor Response Spectra 53 Containment Vessel (Vertical) i,,

Elevation 808'-0" 29.

Floor Response Spectra 54

't..-

Containment Internal Structures (Vertical)

~~

Elevation 653'-0" L_

f+-*

l uw W.

H' L_

?~

s L

s 7,..

b w..-

. :{

I.

INTRODUCTION During the course of the 201st meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff j

presented a lengthy discussion concerning their present thinking on the appropriate seismic criteria for a Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) for a site such ;s Davis-Besse located in the Central Stable Region.

j'"

This discussion took place during the course of the ACRS review of the application for a license to operate the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1.

. r-.

During the course of the discussion, the NRC staff stated that their position now tends to consider a SSE acceleration value of 0.20g at the ground surface in free field as the appropriate seismic criteria for the Davis-Besse site. This acceleration would then be deconvoluted to foundation level for seismic structural design.

~

The NRC Staf f during this discussion stated, however, that they have accepted the seismic design bases for Davis-Besse, Unit 1, presented in

~~

the Final Safety Evaluation Report (FSAR) as satisfactory. They further stated that they felt the difference between the present Davis-Besse,

[

Unit I design, based on a horizontal acceleration of 0.15g at foundation level and an acceleration value of 0.20g at the ground surface in free field deconvoluted down to foundation level, was not significant.

In their letter of January 14, 1977, the ACRS reported the results of their review of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 and included the following paragraph concerning seismic design basis:

~~

(-~

"The structures and components of Davis-Besse, Unit 1, were designed for a Safe Shutdown Earthquate (SSE)

"'j acceleration of 0.15g at the foundation level. Because of changes in the regulatory approach to selection of seismic design bases, the Committee believes that an acceleration of 0.20g would be more appropriate for the SSE acceleration at a site such as this in the Central S' table Region. The Applicant presented the re uits of preliminary calculations concerning the safety margins 3.-

of the plant for an SSE acceleration of 0.20g.

The Committee recommends that the NRC Staff review this aspect of the design in detail and assure itself that

'?

significant margins exist in all systems required to L;

accomplish safe shutdown of the reactor and continued shutdown heat removal, in the event of an SSE at this

,r higher level.

The Committee believes that such an I J, evaluation need not delay the start of operation of f*

Davis-Besse, Unit 1.

The Committee wishes to be kept informed."

i L-.

In view of the ACRS request, Toledo Edison requested Woodward-Moore-house & Associates, Inc., their geotechnical consultant and Bechtel, their architect / engineer to review the bases for the selection of the Davis-Besse, Unit 1 Safe Shutdown Earthquake and the present seismic design.

+-

ow.-a m

-w

---m.

4.

1 The purpose of this review was to:

(') confirm the level of conserva-

~~

tism in the current design bases, (2) determics the ef fects on Category I structures, piping and equipment, and earth structures of a seismic design based upon a 0.20g Seismic Event (application of a horizontal acceleration of 0.20g at the ground surface in the free field which is deconvoluted to foundation level), and (3) based upon items (1) and (2) determine if significant mstgin exists in the present design in the case of a 0.20g Seismic Event. This report is the result of this review.

mm

.hom.e 4~

[~'

.F

'm o

6 e

, aus e rj'.

(,-

lIL i

r^

e i

e

.-e-

+,w 6

v

.l II SELECTION OF MAXIMUM POSSIBLE EARTHQUAKE In the PSAR and FSAR for Davis-Besse, Unit 1, the Maximum Possible Earthquake has been modeled conservatively after the maximum historic earthquake (the Anna cartFquake of 8 March 1937) within the site region not occurring along presently known geologic (fault) structures. A significant data base of circumstantial and sound logical evidence exists which indicates, however, that the source of the Anna earthquake may be found in faults underlying the epicentral region. The earthquake was reported as having an intensity of MM VII-VIII or a strong intensity VII; the location of the historic earthquake is the Anna, Ohio area.

We have investigated the hypothesis that the bifurcation of the Cincinnati Arch has caused a local structural weakness in the subsurface

. re-rock strata, which in turn allows for regional strain release in the Anna area. The Cincinnati Arch divides into the northeast trending Findlay Arch and the northwest trending Kankakee Arch in the approximate area of Shelby Co., Ohio. Earthquake epicenters in the Anna area are locatsd in the area delineated by the bifurcation of the Cincinnati Arch.

L-The confluence of these three structural trends (Cincinnati Arch, Kankakee Arch, and Findlay Arch) could indicate the occurrence of some structural disturbance, anomaly, or weakness.

Drs. Walter (Walter 1973), Sbar (Sbar 1973), Nuttli (Nutt11'1973),

Mancusco (Mancusco 1973), Jansen (Jansen 1973), Clifford (Clifford 1973),

Andersen (Andersen 1973), Frank (Frank 1973), Pawlowicz (Pavlowicz 1973),

and Bradley (Bradley 1973) concur that the hypothesis of underlying

~~

faults, structural disturbance, anomaly, or weakness in the Anna area are the cause of the Anna earthquakes.

Mayhew (1969) has postulated the existence of subsurface north-south faults in the general region of the bifurcation based on seismic reflection r,

studies; McGuire (1975) postulated similar subsurface faulting based on

-~

additional geophysical survey -

N.

Faulting interpretation of geophysi-f _ _'

cal data for the area has been based on analysis of both gravimetric and aeromagnetic work (McGuire 1973; Philbin, Long and Moore 1965; Williams L.-

and Pollack 1975).

t

~

Pawlowicz (Pawlowicz 1973) indicates a preltninary correlation be-L_

tween the nearby Lima _. Ohio oil field withdrawals and the Anna earthquakes.

Such a correlation would indicate the existence of local faults or sub-surface weakness which may be responding to stress changes initiated by q-}

'{

oil and gas withdrawal. Such large-scale mineral withdrawal and postulatad faults do not exis.t in the Davis-Besse site locality.

'i L

I L

(1) presently termed Safe Shutdown Earthquake C

I amme wr

r-

-- o Thare is no seismic or geologic evidence to indicate a relation-ship between the postulated local faulting in the Anna area and the Findlay r-Arch. The Findlay Arch is a Precambrian basement rock structure with a

,d' broad crest width of 10 mi to 15 mi, and very gentle side slopes (typical slopes of 1.5% to 2.5%); subsequent sedimentary strata draped over the r-arch have bedding slopes that are even flatter than those of the arch.

1 There is no evidence of significant faulting, warping, or fracturing along 4

the arch except in the Anna vicinity.

~ ~

The site is located on the east slope of the Findlay Arch about 75 mi northeast of the Anna area and the area of the bifurcation. There is no significant historical seismic activity comparable to that in the Anna

r-area occurring anywhere along the arch except at Anna. In addition, there is no direct or indirect evidence for a structural anomaly, fault, or fracture in the site vicinity; consequently, there is no basis to conclude l r~

that a similar earthquake might occur in the site vicinity.

L-Initial assignment of the intensity for two Anna, Ohio earthquakes (2 March 1937 and 8 March 1937) was made by Neumann (1940) using the

,I' Modified Mercalli Scale (Wood ad Neumann 1931). Both events are reported IL as being of intensity MM VII. The 8 March event was reported as: Near Anna, Ohio VII. Perhaps slightly stronger and more widespread than the shock of March 2 but the difference was not great." The earthquake in-tensity was subsequently upgraded by the USC&GS and NOAA.

j An additional conservatism was employed by the applicant in accepting r

q' the upgraded intensity of MM VII-VIII for the 1937 Anna, Ohio earthquake.

This upgraded intensity corresponds to that reported for the earthquake in the Earthquake History of the United States (1973).

e n_,

The applicant is presently reviewing in detail the logic and any data used by others in upgrading the 8 March 1937 Anna, Ohio earthquake to a Lr MM VII - MM VIII. Based on preliminary data analysis, it appears that s{

there is no clear evidence supporting the upgrading of the 8 March 1937 earthquake intensity above MM VII.

Summarizing, the Davis-Besse site is located on the eastern flank of the Findlay Arch. Excluding the Anna area at the southern end of the arch, t_m the largest historic earthquake occurring anywhere along the arch is in-tensity MM VI.

-~

There is strong evidence suggesting the Anna earthquake has acausal relationship with faults in the Anna Area. However, based on the limited jik data base existing for seismic activity within the Central Stable Region

'L-of the United States, the applicant has conservatively assumed a strong intensity MM VII Anna earthquake could occur close to the site and selected j

!["

this earthquake as the Maximum Possible Earthquake. This conservatism

' L_.

should be emphasized because logical analysis of existing data supports a strong intensity MM VI as being conservative for the Davis-Besse site.

l' t

1

.I Q

l

-p e

, _. +

---_,,-._m-.v.,.-_,.9,..r,y.

,n,

,y,w.

g eww..w_.-

.w-

)

r-11 -

However, assuming the Trifunac and Brady relationship to hold for the Davis-Besse site, the calculated horizontal vibratory acceleration for a strong intensity MM VII (i.e., an intensity of 7.5) is only 0.187g not a

0.20.

3 The Trifunac and Brady data bare relies heavily upon data obtained from one earthquake - the 1973 San Fernando earthquake. More recently others (O'Brien et al 1976) have evaluated both the same data and other United States and foreign earthquake data and generated significantly dif ferent acceleration-earthquake intensity relationships. Based upon a review of both Trifunac and Brady (1975) and O'Brien et al (1976) it s our opinion that the Trifunac and Brady " average line" for intensity versus acceleration used to obtain 0.187g (0.20g) for a strong intensity MM VII is hcavily biased by the extreme points of the relationship at high (intensity MM X) and low (intensity MM IV) intensities. Data for

.r intensity MM X consists of one earthquake recorded at one recording station which has a rather unique and complex geometric location Vaich greatly influences the recording station; intensity MM IV data consists

~r of records from three recording stations.

u Using a more appropriate statistical approach, a horizontal vibratory ground acceleration of 0.13g to 0.14g would be obtained for a strong intensity MM VII (7.5) event. This fact coupled with the competent soil and bedrock foundation conditions of the Davis-Besse site; i.e., more competent than the " average" conditions, lead us to conclude that on a site specific basic a horizontal vibratory ground acceleration of 0.187g for the Davis-Bese site is overly conservative. We, therefore, believe that raising this value to 0.20g to comply with the NRC staff's present comments, represents an unnecessary additional redundance of conservatism.

?

e e s OM rep +

9 e

h.

hT4 s

=

W m

_.-w y

9

r-III SELECTION OF HORI'.ONTAL VIBRATORY GROUND ACCELERATION The selection (in 1969) of the horizontal vibratory ground acceler-i.

ation associated with the Maximum Possible Earthquake (a strong in-tensity MM VII event) for the Davis-Besse Unit 1 site, was not made using a single technique. A broad base technological approach was em-ployed utilizing:

(1) multiple intensity (magnitude) acceleration correlations; (2) diverse expert consultation; and (3) detailed analy-sis of item (1) and (2) combined with site geological and geotechnical conditions.

A total of four intensity (magnitude) acceleration correlations were used in the selection of the horizontal vibratory ground acceleration.

They consisted of Hershberger (1956), Gutenberg and Richter (1942) and TID 7024 (1963), and Seed et al (1969).

Consultation was obtained from Drs. Clarence Allen, Cal Tech, G. W. Housner, Cal Tech, and L. M. Murphy, USGS.

b-In addition, Dr. J. F. Devine of the USGS made an initial review of the selected design earthquake and resulting ground acceleration. This

[-~

review supported the selected design acceleration, and in the full ACRS hearing of 6 January 1977 on Davis-Besse he restated that position.

Site geological and geotechnical conditions such as the shallow stiff soil profile, and the placement of foundations on bedrock for all significant structures, were also considered in the selection of the design acceleration. These site conditions were coupled with the fact that the majority of the data, for all presently existing earthquake in-tensity-acceleration correlations, are based upon measurements and ob-servations of " average" conditions; (ie, thick soil profile). Recorded r--

design horizontal vibratory ground motion parameters such as velocity and

~~

displacement are shown to be significantly lower for hard rock site conditions than they are for " average" conditions. In conclusion average conditions are not as favorable as the geotechnical conditions existing at the Davis-Besse site.

Based upon a detail review of all the above data and inputs, a con-servative evaluation of the maximum horizontal vibratory ground acceler-ation was made and a value of 0.15g was selected for the Maximum Possi-u_

ble Earthquake (strong intensity MM VII). This value was to be applied at the foundation level, typically at or in the bedrock.

The NRC staff',s present (1977) tendency to recommend a 0.20g maximum horizontal vibratory ground acceleration for a site such as Davis-Besse Unit 1 is related to the results of recent work of Trifunac and Brady bi-(1975), relating acceleration to intensity.

.I" e

-e l. --

mr

e I

~

IV PARAMETRIC DECONVOLUTION OF 0.20g SEISMIC EVENT l

I~

To evaluate the effects of a 0.20g seismic event (horizontal free field ground acceleration) on the plant structure and facilities, the following detailed analysis was made: (1) a conservative but re-presentative free field soil profile (layering) was established; (2) evaluation of various soil profile and static and dynamic properties were made; and (3) based upon the data base identified in items (1) and (2), a parametric deconvolution enalysis was performed to establish the range of horizontal vibratory free field ground acceleration at the bedrock interface.

The soil conditions in 1600 ft. by 2000 ft. prepared plant site were established based upon review of all existing subsurface information.

Figure 1 presents a schematic representatien profile applicable to the Unit 1 structures and facilities.

Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC) has made a series of static and dynamic laboratory tests on undisturbed samples representative of the soil layering identified in Figure 1.

Included in these tests were dyna-mic material property determinations (cyclic triaxial strain controlled tests).

'r Figure 1 presents the selected range of shear modulus values used in the deconvolution study. Figure 3 presents the relationship of shear mo-

~

dulus over maximum shear modulus (C/Gmax) versus strain for the soils identified in Figure 1.

Figure 4 presents typical damping versus strain for the same materials. Because of the excellent reproducibility of the test results the soil layering at the Davis-Besse site has been modeled in the deconvolution process using the smooth G/ Cmax versus strain curve

'F identified in Figure 3 and the smooth damping versus strain curve identified

t_;

in Figure 4.

To bound the deconvolution process, several parametric analyses were performed.

The seismic input motion was the Davis-Besse Unit 1 design f-'

accelerogram;i.e.,the modified Helena S90W earthquake scaled to both 0.187g and 0.20g.

The 0.187g value was used only for representative soil proper-ties whereas the 0.20g value was used for both the representative shear mo-duli and the representative upper bound and lower bound shear moduli.

All deconvolution analyses were made using the standard SHAKE computer program.

r-Table 1 summarizes the results of these parametric studies and indi-cates for the soil layering profile established in Figure I with a surface l

free field horizontal vibratory ground acceleration of 0.20g, that at bedrock the free field horizontal vibratory ground acceleration varies from i

L--

0.154g to 0.167g.

If the actual Trifunac and Brady surface vibratory ground acceleration of 0.187g is used for the selected representative shear moduli,

{C the resulting acceleration at the bedrock surface is only 0.144g.

H L

-w.

O

4M 14 -

To check the sensitivity of soil layering on the deconvolution process, the representative soil layering was modified as shown in Figure 2.

Using the representative upper bound S ax values and the 0.20g seismic event,

~~

no significant increase in acceleration was obtained;e.g. 0.168g versus 0.167g.

C rf t

~b, W

we M

m

- e.

C r-ib l

pg F

' +

lr

,h%,

9

---y-

--yn--m-e

~e-

-g--9 e

--y-i

- m-+

ryg e - - -

i i

._ ~~^

V.

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS LA The purpose of the structural analysis is to determine the ef fects r--

on Category I structures, piping and equipment, and earth structures, of i,

a seismic design based upon a 0.20g Seismic Event (application of a horizontal acceleration of 0.20g at the ground surface in the free field which is deconvoluted to foundation level), and to determine if signi-f ficant margin exists in the present design in the case of a 0.20g Seismic t-Event.

[I A structural analysis of each of the Category I structures was made

{t based upon the 0.20g Seismic Event. Surface horizontal and vertical response spectra for various damping values were calculated. Time history p-motions were generated in accordance with BC-TOP-4A.

The program SHAKE was used to calculate the corresponding bedrock time histories. Based

.g upon these, detailed structural analyses were made.

"I (1) Davis-Besse Unit 1 Seismic Design Bases (FSAR) t k.

The Davis-Besse Unit 1 structural analyses were based

~r-upon response spectra with a maximum acceleration of

'i 0.15g at foundation level. The spectra for various i ^~

dampings were developed from a modified Helena time history. A response spectrum for 5% damping is shown in Figure 5.

Damping values used for different types I-of structures are shown in Table 2.

These values, when compared to Regulatory Guide 1.61, are conser-

{

vative.

UL Based upon developed response spectra and damping r-values, floor response spectra were generated. The

. d piping, components, systems, and equipment were con-J-

servatively designed to meet the floor response spectra.

Y i[_

1 (2) Ef fects of 0.20g Seismic Event Basis O

Figure 5 also shows spectra that were developed for

- u a modified Helena time history 0.20g Seismic Event

~~

and for a Bechtel synthetic time history, presented in BC-TOP-4A, 0.20g Seismic Event at the foundation

.df!

level. For comparison, the fundamental frequencies L12 of various buildings are shown in the insert "

Figure 5.

For the majority of the buildings the L{s, l-Davis-Besse Unit I design curve is above those for the other two events. This gives a preliminary

',m indication that most of the structures and equipment are satisfactory for a 0.20g Seismic Event.

.,b To more fully evaluate the ef fects, detailed analyses were made and are described in the following paragraphs:

n-l

r~

s 1 l

a) Response Spectra b

For the purpose of these analyses, the ground horizontal and vertical spectra for a 0.20g

{*~

Seismic Event were developed using the techniques outlined in Regulatory Guide 1.60 " Design Re-t_

sponse Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants", see Figures 6 and 7.

I b) Time History I'

To perform time history analyses, a time history is generated. It is required that the response spectra of che time history are such that they envelop the Regulatory Guide 1.60 spectra.

Figures 8, 9,10, and 11 show horizontal and

~

vertical time history spectra for various damping values that were generated in accordance with 0bi BC-TOP-4A.

tL c) Deconvolution i_,

Both the response spectra and time history for the 0.20g Seismic Event were applied at the finished grade level in the free field. The r-corresponding horizontal response spectra and time history at the foundation level (top of rock) were obtained by the method ot deconvolu-f

tion analysis. The computer program SHAKE was l-.

used to perform the deconvolution analysis.

Using the idealized soil profile and upperbound soil properties (Figure 1) the vibratory motions r-L, calculated at the foundation level, in general, give response spectra not less than 60% of the p-ground response spectra as shown in Figures 12 i

and 13.

The response spectra and time history h"

generated were then used as input motions for the horizontal analyses.

L_

The vertical response spectra and time history for the 0.20g Seismic Event were applied at the rr foundation level for conservatism because the

[}

SHAKE program cannot be applied directly.

In i

addition, the vertical motions do not amplify as much as horizontal motions in the structures h

and the contribution of the vertical seismic i

Lg5 stresses to the total stresses is relatively l

small.

-m h*

d) Development of Structural Response c_

1 j

Seismic analyses for the 0.20g Seismic Event

[_,

were performed for all Category I structures.

l

\\

r.,~

The damping values based on Regulatory Guide 1.61 as shown in Table 2 were used. The methods of 4.

analysis and mathematical models were the same as those described in Section 3.7.2 of the FSAR.

F-j~~

Table 3 shows the summary of base shears and moments for the structures due to the seismic portion of the loading. All the moments and shears for the 0.20g Seismic Event are below the design values except for the intake structure and the valve room.

The design computations of these structures were r

reviewed in detail and when all the loadings were

{

considered the final stresses were'within the allowable stresses given in the FSAR. Thus, it was concluded that all the structures have signifi-I cant margins for the 0.20g Seismic Event.

To evaluate the effects of the 0.20g Seismic Event I

[ _..

on piping, systems and equipment, the floor response spectra at the highest elevations of the structures housing Category I components were developed and e-are shown in Figures 14 tht2 29. The Davis-Besse Unit I horizontal design spectra envelop the 0.20g Seismic Event response spectra for the same damping values with sufficient margins. Additional conser-vatism due to the higher damping values allowed by Regulatory Guide 1.61 for equipment and compon-ents are not considered since sufficient margins F

have been demonstrated in Figures 14 thru 24.

b The Davis-Besse Unit I vertical design response 7-spectra are below the 0.20g Seismic Event response 1.

spectra for the same damping value of 0.5% at some frequencies. However, the differences in accelera-tion values are relatively small. Since the b

vertical acceleration is applied in the axis which is in general the strongest of the three orthogonal axes for most equipment and components, the in-r crease has little effect on the equipment and com-ponent designs. Its ef fect was further reviewed by comparing the response spectra with appropriate g

damping values for the same type of equipment and p.

component, (e.g., for small piping system, 0.5%

c damping was used for Davis-Besse Unit I design versus 2% given in Regulatory Guide 1.61, as shown PP in Table 2), and the difference in spectral accelera-b tions was even smaller as illustrated in Figures 25 thru 29.

5 Considering that the response in the horizontal direction for the 0.20g Seismic Event is less than that for the Davis-Besse Unit I design and the l-H

. r-increase in vertical response contributes only a

~~-

small portion of the total stresses, it is con-cluded that a significant margin of safety exists for the equipment, components and systems, r--

The only seismic Category I structures supported on soil at grade elevation are the Ultimate Heat Sink Forebay Earthen Dike, Borated Water Storage r-Tank and Diesel Oil Storage Tanks. The stability b.

of the Forebay Dike has been checked and found adequate. The factor of safety is reduced from 2.5 to 2.1 for the 0.20g Seismic Event. The r--

j Borated Water Storage Tank which is supported on Category I backfill has been checked with the induced stresses resulting from 0.20g Seismic Event and found adequate. The Diesel Oil Storage Tanks are buried in Category I backfill. Their analyses are in accordance with Sections 4.0 and F~~

6.0 o f BC-TOP-4A.

The induced stresses have been

[_,

checked and found adequate.

r--

Based upon the results of the above analyses, the designs of all seismic Category I structures, equipment, systems, and components for Davis-Besse Unit I have been checked and have been found to have a significant margin for the 0.20g Seismic Event.

5 P

6L_

g _.-

L._

me 4

w-f

M

'6 fsT w

nl l

L-t__

I I

w_

.r~

. r_

VI CONCLUSIONS Results of the above study indicate that redundant conservatism was

, ~

employed in the Davis-Besse Unit 1 seismic design criteria. There has been conservatism in:

(1) selection of the design earthquake; i.e. a r-strong intensity MM VII instead cf a strong intensity VI; and (2) the I

original selection process of the horizontal vibratory ground accelera-

tion, r-In addition to the above conservatism the NRC staf f has recommended t

that a 0.20g Seismic Event is appropriate for design of nuclear power r- -

plants located, such as Davis-Besse Unit 1, in the Central Stable Region.

[-

This 0.20g Seismic Event is supposedly based upon the Trifunac and Brady Relationship for earthquake intensity and acceleration. However, this relationship yields an upper bound value of 0.187g for the NRC staff approved Davis-Besse design earthquake (strong MM VII; i.e. 7.5).

This rounding up to 0.20g must be considered as another conservative factor.

F-Following the ACRS request, the NRC staf f's 0.20g Seismic Event has L,

been conservatively deconvoluted from the free field ground surface to bedrock. A parametric analysis was made to determine the representative upper bound effects of deconvolution. The results of this parametric r--

analysis indicated an upper bound bedrock interface acceleration of 0.167g.

Following the conservative measures taken in the selection of the Maximum Possible Earthquake and associated horizontal vibratory ground motion it is obvious that if all conservatism were removed, the reasonable decon-voluted bedrock acceleration might be as little as one half of this upper a

bound value.

I I.

A structural analysis of each of the Davis-Besse Unit 1 Category I

'~

structures was then made based upon the 0.20g Seismic Event. Surface horizontal and vertical response spectra for various damping values were r_

calculated. Time history motions were generated in accordance with 6-BC-TOP-4A.

The program SRAKE was used to calculate the corresponding bedrock time histories. Based upon these inputs, seismically induced 7'

base moments and shears were calculated for all Category I structures L_

supported on bedrock. The seismically induced moments and shears for all Category I structures, except the intake structure and the valve room, were below those used in the design of Davis-Besse Unit 1.

A r

detailed review of the design computations was made on the intake struc-ture and the valve room and it was found that the combined total stresses were below the allowable stresses given in the FSAR.

f To evaluate the adequacy of the Davis-Besse Unit 1 design of Category I m__

equipment, components and systems under the 0.20g Seismic Event, floor re-7 sponse spectra were generated for the maximum elevation in each Category I L_

structure. It was found that the horizontal response spectra for the 0.20g l

Seismic Event was below that for the Davis-Besse Unit 1 design for all 1

buildings. In some cases, the vertical response spectra for the 0.20g Seismic l7 Event exceeded the spectra for the Davis-Besse Unit 1 design at the same H-damping value of 0.5%.

However, the vertical spectra generated for the 0.20g Seismic Event using the higher damping values given in Regulatory Guide

.1.61 showed acceptable response. Considering the horizontal spectra, the vertical spectra for appropriate damping values, the loading cases and the l

L_

e

i

)

.r--

1 conservatism in the Davis-Besse Unit 1 design, it was concluded that a significant margin of safety exists for the equipment, components and system designs.

i, Finally the structures supported on, or constructed with soil were reviewed for the 0.20g Seismic Event and it was concluded thet signifi-r--

(

cant margins of safety exist.

7__

In conclusion, a detailed review of the effects of a 0.20g Seismic Event _ for all seismic Category I structures, equipment, systems and components for Davis-Besse Unit I have been made. Results of this review.

indicate that even with the identified redundant conservatism necessary

[~'

to obtain a 0.20g Seismic Event, significant safety margins exist.

'l r--

u,

md y,ee u.-

L_

ros ba r~

t^

h e

w lw w

m'

. ;n REFERENCES

Anderson, J., Rent State University, (Oct 1973), personal 1 --

communication.

i Bradley, E., Xavier University, (Oct 1973), per onal communication.

j~~

Clifford, M., Ohio State Geological Survey, (Oct 1973), personal ti communication.

9

'i~'

Frank C.,

F.ent State University, (Oct 1973), personal communication.

L Cutenberg, B. and Richter, C. F.

(19'42) "Eart hquake Magnitude, Intensity, Energy, and Acceleration" Bull Seis Soc Am, p',,

No. 3, p.

163,191.

L...

Hershberger, J.

(195 ) "A Comparison of Earthquake Accelerations with Intensity Ratings" Sull Seis Soc Am, 46, No. 4, p.137-320.

E-d

Jansen, S., Ohio State Geological Survey, (Oct 1973), personal communication.

Mancusco, J.

J., Bowling Green University, (Oct 1973), personal u.

communication.

Mayhew, C.

H., (1969) " Seismic Reflection St.udy of the Subsurface Structure in Western and Central Ohio", Ohio State University Doctoral Disser-tation.

McGuire, Donn (1975) Geophysical Survey of the Anna, Ohio, Area, unpublished Paster's Thesis, Eowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio.

"~~

Neumann, F.

(1940) " United States Earthquakes,1937" USC&GS, Ser No. 619.

7 t

Nuttli, O. W., St. Louis University, (Oct 1973), personal communica-tion.

O'Brien, L.

J., J. R. Murphy and J. A. Lahoud, (March 1976),

The Correlation of Peak Ground Acccleration Arplitude with Seismic Intensity and Other Physical Parameters, Final Tech Rept (Draft), US NRC u_

Pawlowicz, E.

W., Bowling Green University, (Oct 1973), personal communication.

rT Philbin, P., C. L. Long and F. C. Monte (1965), Aeromagnetic Map of the Coluu5us-D.iyton Area of Ohio and Indiana: USGS Geophysical Investi-gation Ifap CP 'e91.

ie--i q-- Sbar, M.

L., Lnmont-Doherty Geological observatory, (Oct 1973),

. personal communication.

L Secd.H..Bolton, 1. M. Idriss, and T. W. Kiefer, (.1969), "Cha rac-teristics of Rock Motions During Earthquakes," Journ of the Soll Mechanics

[ 5

-and Foundations Div,.ASCE Vol 95, No. SMS, Prog' Paper 6783, pp. 1199-1218, September.

c-Seed, H. B.,-and I. M. Idriss. (1970), " Soil Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Response Analyses," Report No. EERC 7010, Univ of Calif,

.l

. Earthquake Eng Research Center, Berkeley, Dec.

r q

Trifunac, M. D. and A.' G. Brady, (Feb 1975), On the Correlation of Seismic Intensity Scales with the Peaks of Recorded Strong Ground Motions, Abs. Bull of Scis Soc of Araerica, Vol. 65, No. 1, p. 139-162.

4 Walter, E., John Carroll University, (Oct 1973), personal communica-tion.

-~

Williams, D. W. and H. N. Pollack, (Sept 1975), Precision Gravity in-the Anna, Ohio Earthquake Zene: Transactions'Am Geophysical Union.

~

U. S. Department of Commernce, NOAA,1973, Earthquake History of the United States, Publ 41-1 (revised through 1970).

iN m

r-

,t n lL3 l

_m l'N u

r--

S u..

Table 1

.r

SUMMARY

0F DECONVOLUTION FOR REPRESEh~rATIVE F

SOIL LAYERING DAVIS-BESSE UNIT 1 m

i l _.4 Bedrock Surface Interface Acceleration Acceleration Site Period, G

(g)

(g) sec max Representative

' ~ "

Values 0.2 0.154 0.14 Representative Values 0.187 0.144 0.14 Representative Upper Bound 0.2 0.167 0.13 Representative Lower Bound 0.2 0.164 0.20(1)

Y

(

Use of " soft" G yellds unrealistic results with respect to actual site conditions.

r_

L e

4 lw I

I_

O w

c.

y e--

I TABLE 2 Comparison of Critical Damping Values Damping, % critical Maximum

' taximum Probable Possible Item, Equipment, or Structures Earthquake Earthquake R.G. 1.61 DB-1 R.G. 1.61 DB-1 Large diameter piping systems, 2

(0. 5) 3 (0.5) pipe diameter greater than 12 in.

Small diameter piping systems, 1

(0.5) 2 (0.5) diameter less than or equal to 12 in.

L Welded steel structures 2

(2) 4 (2)

F Bolted steel structures 4

(2) 7 (5)

Reinforced concrete structures 4

(2) 7 (4) r Equipment 2

(1)

-3 (1) u F

t_.

c L

' IO i

C I h w

-+----+e

.y

--p-r w

.J TABLE 3 Comparison of Seismically Induced Base Shear & Moment for Lateral Analysis (A)

(B)

(C)

(D)

Shear Shear A/B Moment Moment C/D Structure (kips)

(kips)

(ft-kips)

~

Aux Bldg Area 6 NS 5480.

5517.7 0.99 179270.

106570.

1.68 Aux Bldg Area 6 EW 5663.5 5647.4 1.00 178540.

104036.

1.72 I-j Aux Bldg Area 7 NS 10114 4958.86 2.04 803990.

379345, 2.12 Aux Bldg Area 7 EW 9513.

5581.19 1.70 775346 438346.

1.77 Aux Bldg Area 8 NS 13309 7043.14 1.89 1003330.

487099..

2.06 Aux Bldg Area 8 EW 15710 7998.5 1.97 1091660.

529755, 2.06

~

Intake Str NS 1454.

1373.94 1.06 45372 43354.2 1.05

'.r-i Intake Str EW 979.

1237.19 0.79 32530 40974.1 0.79 1

Ctmt Shield Bld (NS &EW)15604.

15822.5 0.99 2794023.

2858960.

0.98 3

Ctmt Vessel (NS & EW) 2485.3 1998.61 1.24 356250.

317004 1.25 Ctmt Internals NS 6388 5218.50 1.22 362650 285140.

1.27 Ctat Internals EW 6731.

4114.37 1.64 398860 232428 1.72 Valve Room (?:S & EW) 120.

144.

.83 2220.

2664.

.83

]

-- DB-1 design values

-- 0.2g seismic event values lO y

I

~

_ _ _. ~ _ -

~

l I-p PLANT GRADE EL 584 GENERAL FILL (MIXTURE OF COMPACTED GLACIOLACUSTRINE AND 11 FT TILL DEPOSITS) 13 FT Y t = 130 pcf p = 0.4 1500 KSF I

Gmax 2000 KSF*

2500 KSF A

GLACIOLACUSTRINE DEPOSIT Y t = 125 pcf 7 FT p =0.4 1200 KSF f

Gmax 2000 KSF*

2500 KSF p

TILL DEPOSIT L _.

Y t = 132 pcf 7 FT ll = 0.35 8000 KSF Gmax 12000 KSF*

~~

18000 KSF M 4fM40 W M46 W M M M T r_ ___ pry,w 69DROCK L

59 NOTE: (1) For G/G max and damping versus strain set Fig. 3 and 4, respectively l

(2)

selected representative values L1 REPRESENTATIVE SOIL LAYERING DAVIS-BESSE UNIT 1 L.

WCC 68C192 Z plg, j l-l

c..

2 Xn R

Gn N

a = 0.2Q g a = 0.20 g a = 0.20 g h

11 i

GENERAL FILL AND 12 FT GLACIOLACUSTRINE GENERAL FlLL AND DEPOSIT 16 FT GLAClOLACUSTRINE DEPOSIT

~

, - - ~ - - - - - -

25 FT GRANULAR STRUCTURAL FlLL

'd i

13 FT TILL DEPOSIT TILL DEPOSIT 8 FT 1

a = 0.168 g il a = 0.167 g g

1 a =0.168 g WiW/M/M/E//W/M/#/W/M;e;W/ptwin;Tr/

traxt;Wergramspw/aswerexy,gw CASE A CASE B CASE C EFFECTS ON DECONVOLUTION BY VARIATION IN SOIL LAYERING DAVIS-BESSE UNIT 1 2!

P w

a

Aa O

E N

1.0 0.8

-'*4

/- SELECTED CURVE Og Oc = 1.5 tsf 0.6 E

x it c

E b

o Seed and Idriss (1970) 3 O

~

0.4 0

0.2 O

O FILL A GLACIOLACUSTRINE 0

t 10'4 10-3 10-2 10'I 1

SHEAR STRAINT percent l

m G/G max VERSUS SHEAR STRAIN FOR SOIL LAYERING w

DAVIS-BESSE UNIT 1

7 7 7

?=-

r-- ]

]

~]

g ]

l

'-]

}

A O

28 R

S FILL Q GLACIOLACUSTRINE

TILL 24

/

20 w' "

i k

4j16 2/o we O

SELECTED CURVE P,

cc 0g

t /.

O d2 = 1.5 tsf 9-O

/O x

4 w

y#

Seed and Idriss (1970) representative lower bound 0

10~4 10-3 10'2 10-I I

SHEAR STR AIN f-percent 2!p DAMPING RATIO VERSUS SHEAR STRAIN FOR SOIL LAYERING a

DAVIS-BESSE UNIT 1

e---

30 FREQUENCY (cps)

D0 SO SO to tb r

2 3'

A OS

.?

.s On

.,......'.,,',n+.

00

- _ y (( {

[ ' ' y *,,. "J E ]' Y

, ',45 ' s (

e

-x a u w w, g,'.,

s..,/.....

J

. 2... e -

.- : h % *'~?

. ', '.,f;.6,4 J -.,... -. a. -

Q]/fX%_.MN/',c,Lwis.

i LL'.

W - v' d;+

K / Y Y \\ a. '). u !.: 2...L.

2.

}.

t.

2 2

' L 2 - '~

L-y

'- ' - -- ; ~7W

/[/ N

' p)Lyyk / / ','G., ' '., ;4..

y r

' ?,Y, A., -

A

' 4 >

>-i' r' f-

/-)b ^

r I

A

^t 4 q 'P e A (f 4%.,5'(, v.,.'p.

e M

I-

,' r ;":.

~ N. -

7 N s

o.

. a

.o iQ; _

g,7'C **

4k W 3j '

,A,

f,<g,e:

/

'.'_,)~*.-

~

r' -

2

. '. 2. \\* k gn

- w. '. yv- /--.*-

t.. }.

,, s.

- 4

<-N + f,A -W'* r* SO

. f. J ffl'* f

/

l

s,

-~

y

,)" '

,'( )._.h,,s. '..,

. f ".1 y

~g!,

,i^

- s e

6,b,/ f f 2 ;/.M < v i

~..gs -

.:.'] -4 %

kh,,

r---

i

c >'

,y N. i; o_.f

\\

V. r }. 2.

A.. % * ~ L ' y j-

.. ' ^ ' 't, V ',f.. '~ Y' ', f ?',

^~ -"

e, w$d',Y h.

/ 2,

. k.....

?..

y W(

w'*

~.

)Q,

<, j 4

/

', ' > l !lU a

.[*b'

' # _p'I

,e ^., !

.'s i.

~'

,7 a,

, I,+, <

n

<\\.'Y N

%f.- }. L Y.

,,4. lv.- - a --

4 < " -4

,Y~ %* -

<Y I

/s

$.4

-\\ /C V =p"g

,e_,

* * ;" A i

~;s?,

4-i

.1

%, <. ', *.;.ft 1.. 2, M,/.,.. s.

, / v './*/

- NIX 1A f f /'.,,#.). ',6.. ".,,f /.,/.[,.

'7 ;-. I d of' ~

s

,a

? T*'* T+f z'4 g,. 8

,~'

-+

2

. --vl b1 $ -

-/ #y ' '

L-~

Q,,},

,' y

g, f//'X/X '>X L): E :, LL' &. e. L.. 2-n- - - J' Y

~, -

f

((, #~t'{' :r'

'~N)~l gf s 3

Ef

- f -/,'. ?-~ ~<'

}~?-/

j-

,c

,. 7

{t

.5

{.l

r r

< Q'

,'..y'.

4 b.

p+-

.)yy'.. gl -- y.+ +~ ~;- - *d 'y ;* :'

~

w 1*

n s

/ ~ ' ' ' '.

? - ' *T* i ~ e 4,sp,a

%66-14ES(6N

'.y

- A

.~r r

?~~.-}y j / / :. )

r s

c

.n f

. W'Y / );'. '

},

k..)

',s.-

-f ',i, i g/j / s' /s v.

/

/

/-

- ^

of-i Y-~ A ~ A - + 2

,,r* ?.& S h

p ' 2.,,1.

~

/

=,.

y ar

%a

')

d

=..f./

-/

~

r,a-g

.d..,, I"

... a f., '..

AREA mmpIAL motwm

/

r..

>y

~

y si k v /,

F sfs

's

,).

fe

/

cr j

HORIZONTAL 2y 5

BNE e_.a.gr-

?

1, North both East - West

.\\

Y,,/.p,*, /;

/g. '

f

,fh l'

6 Aux. Bldg.

6.29 7As p

% necnnu

'l.a. ;;

.//

Met 1%bdK'*

.. p/ k '

i

p. -.k,

,<.,, At 7

Aux. Bldg 7.63 6.05 m

e s r/-

' r'.,L,..-- a,

- N.r / V t' 1

. " ~ f ' *' f'., /, !

8 a

Aux Bldg.

7.t s 7.33

=

s a f.t f

(////V V'i, 'V if /* Ly2

{,,),

O

/ / i')//.

'/

, ge,,,,,,,,, w,,g3 3,o7 3,o7 W ['X f) l/ / /,, ?.< M, Y,. i,~"'-

w

^/

??..

'F y% /

7

'.fe

[.,

. j.

f,f

'.'.'y j

f Intake Structure

/ r H.33 20.38 c

3

'. Yg,--

,p

/

. =

' % /'. g *. *h2 4*

f & Y,,' / f -~~

-f,*')s' s,y

?/

Val,e Room (ediscent to intake) 30.20 28.30 q,>, ; *

f V~

{

}

!.3. /..'~[ >.

4.. _

/

pa.

N.\\<mc_w!/r

~7 fc.

' Y l y'

.l r

.y, w 4, fa,.r.

x, o

"}

X

.,V '.;,', y

/,(; '

/

r v.

L

.y.

r

/

,/

i I

,~

iti

,1

/U J L.S.f.

L'L -

l.

b.I sI' U

.I -

d'JI d

a _.

Ni ' 'O or 02 03 04

'8 J'

?

~

3 O

L._

PERIOD (secs )

h COMPARISON OF RESPONSE SPECTRA AT FOUNDATION LEVEL FOR 5% DAMPING u

FIGURE 5 m

th

~

.n FREQUENCY (cps)

DO SO 30 to IS C

7 5

3 2

eS I

07 C$

03 02 Or3 Of "M.W]pg"=q',."w[Dy' *' r".z'J TFF+h ], swy e$

sii1

,-r-1 i

it

W T' t ' T""T"*,

P Q ", $ f g' M E " 'J i i - 'T " Te w 'T '

t""T'"

i i

-" F

~

S 1

9 w g4

.1 K

N,

^Q.Qge3[

G~.~j'-"iWEZf. i.w,.9~' 1'7

"'~"

"M' ~"/ /

3 X f/'s OM.bM//'.[*Wg/. PERCENT CRITIC AI. D AM r-

,^J x 1.Xi 4 & W,"/ / -

". 1/ r/1/ t "/a s

f_M'Xh-4 l

n 'X 4

~

40

+PS M % W: :

?M/ A>

w-. w

- w

$a>

C4

. ^,

y v

- * * ~ * - 6f =t- -W+

40 mv:X/ A 'xM' p.' xUd A 4%

,,rearmw; 4

[

cdgyr_

/:<7v

% m'v 'u 6 ' ^w%'X' m

A

/ Y>MA R4'a NW 4/XMb

(

iv M

~

kkhhhf'dfI f$

2*/Y'

$Yk.

s' y

/sy q.

v, xge y..

c:

E f xW ras %

. 7% ;.., p,'L 4 5

' /x ' >_..\\_,

~

. W W W)*% 4.

g, y'

,}

g' N

w.

. 7 F X~ Q i_; d y e.,e v j ~1 y' i

uM nvww w-/ve~ vm /vv. / v vt s_

5 W/XiAl Y,XJ X'hY ~ [ ' N / /l/l /'k'/D"'/,([_/4 //l/l E.6%'h/xXhAwM t.c /xW'. ww/,r/ //%%['O,i p

iqTj i

R g w%%'!X%%W8/MM/X'/Wg[(y'W//14 [gwo4d wxw/wns a p/ m / w/w / w n n g

/

l Y

/

s.

,P 4._,*

)

~

' ] f

, W n W A.'N 'Y/W'Q W.'AN'f7'

,D '7 XW W:k p

W)h

,V'/d N

sN r.

, i gEd.

g- -

V

/}

, % c.

V

/

., i Af A / A __ w

/gy

,A / f. /

,f 1

_ 6 j

!?

E\\ /.. / 'O ',d.'.

pN,

,,/A/\\

/ y, ]<,

I d

DM14 dhb* /I \\

N d d / /' / 5 '

b A

/-

e U.A

\\

F e

y'f/ Y /N['{[j f[ A ~,' '{f4/ /j'~gyj /}/'

2

//

s' Y _ r' I' I I('/4~

/

(,[

~ /y /' / y/4 * (/ / j [Q(\\

WJXf '$ j/L s'C172g^/YJ Q'/' Xytjd.. ' Lf- -- v/X s1.4 4.,.:.6. 4

~

g y'I/ i t' f i X f.8 i~

$.+.x) s V-N.s

'4 ~

ENW/

/.-

.+

e

&,./

,3

\\ /

/

~

,o

/.

,y./{ N.

- u.-n

-. v.,s

, W-

/.

_'2,a.N., '. ; Wfrp/'fj //-[ ed.d_._. h. 43" Z

U Sv o a. /. '..M'Z//

s

. w -..- u%. y

, 'i O-< yo.A 2 -==-

y

+ y-

+.+y--

.sf.

ar 2

~

sl 4

i.*l e

'N,.pp:xg. g.,.gg<. r- %

1

-' y9 & q 7g,rr<c,+.q..,a.,yr,,:

. A x,L)AG!A,C

,.,, i mm l.

d,a/,

2

.L

/.'

- i n r/ggmugs

,#r,

.y m

x,.A v

CI 02 03 04 06 00 t

2 3

4 6

e a

2 1

4 6

8 C

PERIOD (secs.)

Lc r

HORIZONTAL

[

GROUND SPECTR A l

O.2g SEISMIC EVENT FIGURE 6

i i

l F

FREQUENCY (cos) oo so so to o

o r

s s

is e

or os os or ce ci

--va,

., * * *. r ve r r y ai "

r--" T- -r"" " " v -*

vr

T r

va ar" r--+ + r* r -**t. " v r-

'N " F"W

'm' m -@wo 4 Z_x U?C2' W'PTT3?.TQSU J

E."3J Z.y/.u)t _q'" /.Q. Lx; L-.- u., "Z" '!

?

L'T

[-

..o tx AoN: 1,. dn.

f g vr y Y, o e, n g

A ao

/ <j x n z\\gr yp.. sy ;f2 ! p,._-}_4 7 e v ypj

.: _ r r-.

/y n e te s s.

. m.p i t/. e I

,, N,/

~

i,N

X L/4 T'k'.Us// ' '. ^ PERCENT CRITICAL D AMPING : / /tM

,F

_ U6;.

s jk>Q, *"~f.),(), p Q W :/ y,/ y,.y

~,/..y g

.o -

n.....s p.--

m.o

/

f I

y y

/

w,h3n g b. y x, p' ? Z F

= ~ y j.'* 7 1Z

i. / >.. =

w.-r...

/p r

,o$x',X,XN'h,@gN M8 t

E4D o

[

.'X)<'~.d..

. y..., h. X

1. J'..W N

5%

/

w&'. A....J..

. a,.

g, r

3.,.,..<-...

~.

/.x a

y (. >

i

. A/:,, N 'x s. >

/.V.

'- \\

~.

a

.o s

. u.'s e,

x../.t j k.

y

..>r.

7--

,.e.

.A 4 s..

. -, n. 3, ;.~ ( :- lt.. f+r s..

o s

' E~q-W+7',

&~

.H~ '

~ " ~

~ 4.~(.*. - /

r

~

u.-

,.c,.m...r..n.... 4:,.7..

1 -v..

~

/. >,7*.-

. v.-/.y i7

'.,. =

.7

~. "/df./['

.._ / i ' V I...,

..j',..,.

..'?,2'.

.}.,' '3 E i /

'V N

J,(( 'A I~~

h.,

h'[

h 'T.g".' I 'MM,M( //..,=kf//[I#

(('h/h [

4

,,. 4,r. $. I /

Y.X 'V }f,,E

,... IN/g >[\\A

/.1 sf / / l'. #

'./ $.

t_

e t

4,

--a.%

r I

[

/,

I

._ ' /-/}/4.. ' g's, m

Q,% N j

b/

2/4 4 Y 2 9 4 / N I /> ~

//'

/1.N[ff,f/

jf

"#['/kik / ksh')/.

' i

'. N d

[ h/'W

'k,,

. /)'N\\j I

h.f,.'k\\

N '? [ ejk [f 'X' f; g 'm/..\\.s

/

' j _

h y;;4p:;g

/

.y y

m y

m c

h

,e R. v.7._

9,

,.'.d84 sy'y v.( y. L s

p,i s x,x v.';y..~./X/j.

1/Pll'..,.. 'M,.

y....

. : N. /> '.,.0,0 i i A,

'rt.. A s.;.,.,s,

.ya..; a,7 uy

.s

/

,v,x u.

_.,f.;, 4 4. i.

1.,?.

m[c

./ -._u s

s

'/ ' 'l Q

'l

[f','.;)%,,,

/\\

l

/'

, l. '.

. j,.6 = ',f L (/ / /,

t

(

1 L

. e p.,rA

/

.,9,,. y. % 4..,. y.c,.;

..r tv/,..,y.

1'/

.o., /.

'y# j.,'. ' af,.N/,/l K.

M

,. r >/v' )

s,.

~

?

+

t sh y,Ds,

\\j. M>'J-}-, % yb,?.

,L..' O ' l l[- [4,j 0

/f.'

4M i,

D. $'h'.h

.,/

.9 1,,

!. }v K//'d) g j

7.*

/$

.V'

'lI

/, y/ 4 9 i N,?,. [..

'..I,, '.j..l..!

/

4

- v'!,,q.%f,Ef't'

/if F >Cx[ 3 g ?/,

e I/

/JM t.

V < d :,t$'ff/ %,

/'/

,/

v:

. ; A. y ; aw r.:, &a a.. m % w~;.i g.g. y m L

7

/

. mmes ;

f, 2.

o' ct os o os oe e a

s s

e e

a s

e o u.;

PERIOD (secs )

t:

VERTICAL GROUND SPECTR A F

O.2g SEISMIC E VENT h

FIGlWE 7

m

-_3 r -]

-J 77

~

1.20 0

1.00 3

2 2%

9y 0.e0 ee"i U

U O.60 3

a o

i C

w f

23 u

N O.40 e

es O

to I

O.20 R.G./.60 SPECTRA

.2

.3

.4

.5 J.7 A.9 1 2

3 4

5 678910 20 33 10 0 FREQUENCY (CPS) 0.2g SEISMIC EVENT HORIZONTAL TIME HISTORY SPECTRA ENVELOPE 2% AND 5% CRITICAL DAMPING

r.

1.20 1.00 1%

s n'

ZO 0.80 a

m0 N

0.60 7%

A E

E i

u m

O N

0.40 E

W O

I O.20 -

i

,/

l

=

iiie i

.2

.3

.4

.5.6.7.8.91 2 2.5 5 4 5678910 20 33 30 0 FREQUENCY (CPS) 0.2g SEISMIC EVENT HORIZOMTAL TIME HISTORY SPECTRA ENVELOPE i

1% AND 7% CRITICAL DAMPING e

i l

8 1.20 1.00 7

w g

Z O,

0.80

>=

M Lad Lj d

V 5%

0 0.60 nb 31 A

~

I C

i.a U-0.40 w

s' i

O O.20 -

R.G. /.6 o SPECTRA E

I e

1 I I I 1 I

e I e l

l t t i I l

t

.2

.3

.4

.5.6 7.8.91 2

3354 5 678910 20 33 10 0 i

FREQUENCY (CPS)

Q2g SEISMIC EVENT VERTICAL TIME HISTORY SPECTRA ENVELOPE 2% AND 5% CRITICAL DAMPlNG I

7q g.

.g p q g y p,

q g

3 q

- q

-)

- j

)

e 1.20 G

1%

1.00

?

)

g o.80 LJ E

I, l

-~

=

0 0.60 -

fl m

7%

r\\

5

^-

5 s

i:

0.40 i

=

R G. /. 60 0.20

^

t f

i t f I I I I

I I f I

f f I ef f

f

.2

.3

.4.5.6 7.8.91 2

3 3.54 56 78910 20 33 10 0 FREQUENCY (CPS)

Q2g SElsMlC EVENT VERTICAL TIME HISTORY SPECTRA ENVELOPE FOR 1% AND 7%

p+ s.

37 FREQUENCY (cos) 00 e

(

L3 02 06 Os oc*

.s; 9. p y.. ;. 4..; y.,h.s -

,4.,,.4. i

-.-1 s,:

. J,.

.e,.;,

,.., *.. "e

.r-,

yay.

s e;7..;s r r:4=v".T."p y b:rFTr 4

,.8 4,

4 4

,4, s.

.2.

.e J

4

,1 v..

.,, 2,,,,3,'..

s.

,....,.,/

6 -.s /?.A

1. y-

/. *.,,..o

,4 p

2, 30 L,/

ag.

g.

s*... g...c.r'.

..,. e...vi 6..,.

i

r

.f.

.v v.

-l Y,h~

a v.e...

o r

.6

. f.

c.,

v.

c-

/ } % ? so

., i,..,., J,1 y '

,c :.,,. ><

.. e..

}.

J.

N. }.

e.

~n y

g s.

y y

s a.

s.

6) r L.[ 5 M,,

u,.<.,

..4..,..g'.,>'."..,,',.

~4.

~?

/

< s

(*"-

6 s

W......, ~. -

r_,.

J...,

z

.g t

.go i

a o

y

.i. y>,-,'. 4 > > /.s,.

a,,.P. -v,-~- v.t.v.,->x...

?.

. y.' *?. *..,.

.. - s,*.t-e.

7

/-

S ao p;:,/,p

/...

r

.,s.

p.

v.

7

,?

q

..:f > > s..

.4 s

y J,//,j n

-/,. 2.

J.

- 2/

} ;.s 2.r.*

i J-

.t. A

~, - A - 4.*.

.y 5--- y,t

. ' i

7.. y J,.,, g ) y V

/,(/'/

Q, 30

,v--..

v.

,,/

f,

,a s,p. >. i.

y L.e,.. +. 1/

g ;. y A ;.g

...,,. Lp t

t.

4 /.. 4 2.,t..;..,', a 4 >.. <.., -.%.

a

_t, y,4'f s JA,,o 20 :.

?,

?

r L.

,,e....

u E.. f,[

J',,*l9

,/ ->,/ nc ac 1..o sace.',

N

.. W'., N' '/ s/

,Y 7

g e)

.J.

. s x p.a., 2 n rmsE GRAM,

- e.

s a

a-..>-

s.y.,.n.z 9.

y

,/-

.y:

./.

-s

.,r

.s y

4 >

>.r,

>N j

"., f,,,

,p.

,'(,-

r,.;

no y-. 3.,+i, ' '-/; d< 7: 1. *, c s.

k 4 I' *

[/

(

4

/' * [ 4

/

, i

/

)

, p-...,A.,a. -, 7

, Ar

,-/

z y,

K,.,g. #,.,,. Qc.. l'.

?-

- u,.3v.

o r-

,--- -,L.

-4+,3, 7';s,

, 2..

,n? v.. a

,a

.J s.

-.-,4

+.s,.

J^

e*---,z.,.~.

4./

. /S T

~ ~.

-..,< t41.

..>,-A

- e. <

.. ',,.- l-,2, e<.i. $ d [y/

4-

---c

-.~ e

. /,'.'v I/./ (.'i,.'.d / yL.J 6,.i 2,.'.'I

, M.

' y y,' 1

6..

O

~

"7

,E.. y.

s.,<.

,,J'

.s-.-

y-y 4-Vr e, y

4. +. -h - y..,( a ', ' sy w._.,Q,'n.

y /,?/x.A Ab,.3

...y

.M

.e

(' /y,s

'.*a 6

- ll,j

.%.-'r'.O.,

' l*?' !li 4

.'. ~

3 s y

. tz.,.,.- g-.

a,,../-

a r

-.g.-

7 Cr-.

..., /.,,., *

. '.i, >,7. <: / > 3}L,,

+

J '1 s '"*,

i(

4 2

~t, ' < -

W r t r i

.N y <,y>..

. ' e.. s x,.. k..

.., y,. h

?/

.c

. 4 4, pt.

,.'.,s.,

e v.

r

.,y yx>

i..>

e / ) e.'.1

,e' 1 4..L_ M~..,y,.

s

~.y c

.c U

d, c=,/ A,y%; --r,/.m. ; :,+> w,cd>' > /t l l.y

, ', 6 m W P'

'. l._.h c$u

's.'.A._.J _ 4.J L'

b,' ;y,w-;q 3

3 0

r/

g.,.'.s s;*., /. - g : > yv v

/,

/

o

-p+,+

+

w

//. ', J y < /_,.' s. 1

/////N

.a A

i

.,> y u

..,m.,, f,.v/"

,f>.

, o.y<<//,

s/

y y<'. >. ^,... e

,v s

.?<

m,./

,i. t r

..../8/ 4

, n. a; >.n,y.. >. >. -..v. r+ /.'.,,

s

.~

. n mote snc m,e.

.. +.

y

+

sr i

8 y : y,,

y' iy>?

i

.V 4 <., Q' y },'i.%...

' f.,.

'{ %, i,.. / >.. ; z '.. s N /

y n mnannoux2nz.

r---

_ [.'y(1. L'.p ' -

g C%)q$

i s

.'.j r. 2.. -- [ M,,. < ? '.- '

.,L/...,.

3 - -

EL'-

'M u,.

,,h.

-. f ;

f

>N l _ v.-

\\w_ ;

-.J.-.p s

, ~,

) e.

V_

a,,c.w !, u,.,!

./z

.x :,.a.x..,n,'y.

o 2..,,s

,., /m ?.

,... 3.. c,. w. u.

y1xL

. :_ 1

.,--n,.,...,.,.

nn a.

.v'/

,..,+.,.:.

.m.x, wv. :'T /v v..s.,v v.

,..,r,......,..y y..<.,, y 1

..e, -

..a

.,n

'. /WM e>.

/;,,y,-

p', g ;, p..

,.-.,. N. c., ~,,. z, <...,q? :.

,; y..g

...y g..4

, cue 1..o incmx n.,.....,

.....y..,

,JQJ

,-.x.

. a__.

._,y.,.-...,..

<y

,/

..n,.

m

n...a >

,>,..r...

y

~

3$-

5,J..

4

?.

3

.1. '. a ' '., ',,,,.h,a.

.L, A 4[,

4*

.A_1,

',. Y.

. 2.

A 3

A; y %y

-~

i?

g +...

-... /. p.c,

v m

, z.L.(.-,

.(. 2.>..e.,. +

..x.

, 4 v

s, c.

',;//Wg r

/.s..

/< '/ 4 > <

/

.e. -

,..,..,.,.. l..

y

.4/

f llf., -....

L.,_.

{

-~.

Y '

y' E

.Y.\\;" /.f

. ry h, hm '}

ye:..:.:.u. < g y'.x ;

.. e 4. :., y

..2

. =

. ;,( </k y.. p p/-

vc4 a

y3 y -js c,

[.

L-

,lX,'h i.h::'E.<

.4

.d'..M E. : :..i,..%-

. _..ri&R.&w, d 2

.1.

~

3 PERIOD hecs) u O.2g SEISMIC EVENT ncesvot.m nr.sms sacracx n

\\r Fot.1, C1 HON IZVEL FOR 41 DAMPING it FIGURE n

u_

- ahan I

3B n.

FREQUENCY (cost FV 90 z'.

3 v.

t

,7

't C3 02 OS 01 n.... r'- - ***'

'*-"r',5-

~ -

. <c -., - a3,. g y/y. a p n,. t

~.J. v.. i.., -, o y y y n w. o : w,;4 J.

. t.

a w

.rar.

m.

- - s '.a

y '.r1r w~71r'tmiyy,r TrrTt ae

,k 4

.n. - - a

,o t.

7

+

.t,1

.2*

' ? ~..JO Y

,% t, at.. 2, i' l- - ' h' 4 ' f.:*

.a dw

- e

...,h</.>.

%,.t... l.

1,..c. 6.

,,.... '.. _,. _. r-

)

e-e0 f,sf % ^1.i.t.

K L hf.:.:J.,.h

2. K :.

2. L :,. L'2.. ',

2..L L VV..y v,v,

.,... -.../...,.,.,. e.

,. 5 4 s.

m,..,

'"- $ so i? s-A ' s '., = s.

.._ :...,.; s:.,,c ', %>,..,....,

., ' l g,/

. /,* {

-~ K JS s, > )p ;,

,.% ;.,. t (.. +.v/4..

- s

, 4.

r,4.

<.,',,r f.,

,o s

a w.y? y

,i

.g SO[N Q E d.

l.}, 4/Y

$ J..,

.Z.

J' Ir

5. 2p' E.

.t.- s

. N,si

+ jcp4)

.c h'._.4,.f't, i.e., 'eL,f.;

4 ? ' y r L '..,J.

i,,yA

~

'.'h,, r..y V

?

t

/)

, s.o

.,.j...i

^

e s

.'a o

l' a

/

n t a a

?'

A',

Y f~'~

s so r

,e

., r 9),...

y q.a y.,.),.g

-.../. > : L,t/- -//,/// j; y

sy. L,,. k; is...

.g,s 4 q -

t ?

. ?

s l

g.., y.7.pe'L,. +. ;. Lp a s in ho..

- 3 rc y..,,. L, / ~. /4

/ s,,//'.f

/,,},t /:

~r

,o

.e 1 ?

=

e, s

3

.s o

s

],.*. g,/ )4p. \\.,..

_..n,,. ' 2_L_,

.s i.r. 4 i

.. i. L.s.s,.e a

p g;

ao 4,

b o...

% '.'./ L.&'? (

Q s'.W. M, L' / ? _l/

/ y:

,),

/

i ' f/.'.'p/.l.s' ' '

.o.

. r. L.,A,. //q/ ; lf

/

\\

y s

C. A J

b' p'

v-s'M(.,ya=f s / j' y 'i V i unc ac 1.60 sncru,-

/xf*

?

= y )v',/.,h /..

i,,c, A ) At F M SHED GRADE I

\\

4,

7-j c L a./ ' k'.x. s 1

hs

< / ~ g y m'n h

u.

A.-

'. 7_ A4 4.L /,k.j,..,4. ~h.,.....

?

' 4 F3,,,,k s,=', x a

u,

,.. s,/4 42.,lA Q/. V

.sg -

~-

~ o

,s.,.la.-,s ',

Y-e ? '

',.%:-,r, Q k M

..,t.

4 J-

. 4Xv' 4 ' '/' !YY '-

?

e J4.A

.Jv 4J 6 <J *, X /h*'

'1 ~-,ds,1,1,w YJ.:.,Z

-- /

, l 'k ' R--a', //.

/ / \\ /l 'Xn '

L"(*2 L z /' ^.7 < /. u' J 7 -.w,1 ' /J>'%.

e 7

/

t

.V//s V V s l V V.'lv '

~'

j / 'V-5'-*s.c r s

'/

y' y t a s V/ f / \\l' A/ ; C 'IA 'i. '/ n's'l--

u 6

/ ]Y_/T / N0'V! $ ? ),'$ /b Rr

>~

1 f.N i ?D 5E'>'.

e

{k',

'Ml l '.,

I ? /l k/ ff k

I~

/

/ _

d,W/lhh 'AW/WN//s./b'fN'k'.Y 's,'{}).

Q V '!'/

l

/66'M/

A ll/l l W!/N b

& 'N

.jh /,A N k'Q ',< /Il'ff,W l/'('/i

'i f

f" h.

/ x i

f ' { At roannom umexconmno sncram /l Y{ la y.'Ns Y'4'/l' l[@.' iT 'y1-i%'Vi>y'Os V

N'

' /// f/

/

\\

' Q

. /'

.( n,</,s/Wy M'

<x 4

~ o,g's ? // /y /,-

.x 'x, s i

.u,

6'

/

x W'/ e.ml~ avyvm

- Y$ % d'l f

A

~v7-r y

e y ~,g. j _ n ; ;

y es,

,2 t.jf>fs w*.J.1,7.4* E-l'/A,fw /_L.A./.AO, f 41/_, /_im i i L./pf / x A /.

,r s

'r

~

V-w r

r

~L M j// / /- N 1 F y. / i, i <, l ?.! y < y ?.y%

.)s Y,M -

f.

(;

{

f*'/ 'f/E y,_Q_'Y$'M i W//Ifl'V W L l'V Wy l Q&,:,ntin' l V &

%{ V'l')@

V.

,e 2.:

v Lu y

e-*-.f.3 g-

-f-.s wp y.n. T. j. i,_.fy't.,.y a,.a; w;,,..r-L ci m /,;

v

. E Y. k,,. /. p. '.=,'

p.; -.i <Y.f i Y, / d l 7 !'/ /. 4., _'/b.'. ' ~N.? j ; 4 '!. ~ l'Q 'W'Y.

Y n

t

.L j

/ /

,g_s

., f y,..

g 7

4:/c j,,., *soz ac 1.6o srzere,,A,7.V j%.

/

)

4 ' j,,.

f

,. Q>.:g, e,

/

g r

y,,y+,/g-A..).

3,_ x s x

.y y y /_..;

ja. f.

. m,,,;_y_

ny

.v+

3 cy 9... / v. / q,,,.y,.. 3,.g(y ry 1

t,

,c

/

s n+

+...; 9..

. p> 2.i, r y. 1,.,.0

/

v r

,.;. /', f.,. e.,.>._.,e ~....:

.:/,: < g g,.

.... _,..<.,_,. :,/.,>,.x y f //.f,G.

c :.

x

......m..

i 2-L f.

,,,'t'

,i -

P.-

r p

.)

,/

F, p),.

)

,,,,)

)

g,,'

y

.. y'.,s.

. n.. g,. 7 f\\

s

, s.:>

/y q$ y 8

4 g.L.. :

s/s V. n -/ *.,:.,v.., ' s T

///Y'( ' f'g R

,y,.

y'.*

?,' -x /.

.5 YA,A oc ci es. a m

2 s

s e

h l L *.

l a

a s

e o p

PERIOD (secs.)

' c._

Q2g SE!SMIC EVENT orcom m un arsroust sa cr m AT 10CNDArICE MEL r0R 7% DufING FIGLRE 13

PLr0N RE5PON5E 5PECTRei OfVI5 BE55E 1 AUX 9 LUG AREA w NS nuAXF A.1825 ACCE LE R AT10' $PECTRUN POINT e

'l ( El C 2 3'-O *)

DAMPIs4G

005 0.1 0.2 0.4 S.6 1.0 20 4.0 6.0 14 2n.

' 6n.*

60.

100 ii

+......... +,..., +,,.. +.. +.. +, +. +. + +......... +..... +... +.. +.. +. +. +. *.*........'+.....*...*..+..+.+.+.++

ll

_400o--

l Itoo i

I f

~~ 6A00-i

5. Goo-

c. -.

~

C t

4y.

i t,

-). 9.

DB-l DESIGM

-- N a

j f osuma - c. oos

, o,

$5 t!

_g G2g $EISMIC EVKAli 3200-DeMPNG = o.005

'i

\\

UI g

i

{

2.40o ~

i I

e

.)

1.soo-i

./\\.

\\

r

.f

\\,[ d'

.800-w\\

/

.~ ~. -..

,g oc.

o--

- T

.a.

_c

_4.

m.....___.

.._.m_i-

+......... +..... +... +.. +.. ?. *. t. + +...,.,,.., f.e.,, s.tt a tt r e.*,, f. +, t e + ?, e t,. e... ?.... e f e 7 ", t., ! e s *. *.

e ? +

,i.1

..7 0.4

.S 1.0

7.. o 4.0 6.3 1'.

26

-e 60 100

^

Fio gisk'3CY (H2)

..b

1 l

l l

l I

I I

I l

I I

t i

i i

iI e

i i

i 40 I

I i

r-t t

i o

o

.o l

t 1

i r

3.:

i o.

i 8

t*

+

6

.+l e

4 In 2

e'

+1=

m. t.

g__

.o oo.

o~

3 s

1 i

i

~.

m o

o..z...

.o.

f.

z.m

..s

.i 1

I i

a P-io

+.

i I

.T.

..l

. I, -

. o, o.

...z.

I,..

u.

go

(

o a

m a?

w.o o,

T,I 2

WI so aj:

.i ti, a.

,o o.

~.

.i

~

-,_l W

.\\

w z.*

44 m o

+

(

j i

.o 1.

4.

o

\\..,

+-

4..

I i

o..

i.

b

.i, o.

r 3

.o.

i..

a.

==.

. o.

I

.. o.

.i

,71

t. -

m.o,...

.-o.

t; 8,-

8 8

8 a

3 8

8 8_

s o

=

6 w

M 4

M M

M W

a l

l l

i i

i 1

l l

lF[GuSEl/5, l

l l

I T

PLOOR RESPONSE SPECTRA Dr.VIS BE5SE 1 Aux BLOG t.REA 8 hs-0UAKE A3.1825

~

ACC ERR ail 09_stECLTRU_M POjNT

5]ELJs41-G*)___QAMP ING =

.005__ __._

0.1 0.1 0.4 0.6 1.0 20 4.0 6.0 10 20.

40.

60.

100.

eeeeeeeeat.e...t.e.+..+..+.+.+.+t........ +.....+e.e+..+..+.+.+e++.....ee...+.....+...+..+..+.+.+.++

8.400 1.400 6400 A

_3._;__

g f1i n 4.400-A h

e y DB-l DESIGM DU9NG = 0.005

~

n 3.400 -

G..

tAOO 0.2 SEISMIC EVOIT

.k.

,e

-,.. aoos l

- 3

.,.4, /vlh i.4eO.

p v'

.\\

p

,/

. _ -..400

\\.

.600

.._.__4_._m.

+.........+.....+...+..+..+.+.+.++.........+.....!...+..t..+.+.+.++.........+.....+...+..+..+.+.+.++

0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.0 20 4.0 6.0 10 20.

40.

60.

100.

F R EqutN(y__ (ttl). ________ _

{

['

[f ]

f~

I

[]

[

l l

c.

FL"C= REtPONSE SPECTRA day!S BESSE 1 CTMT VESSEL A 0 1825

~_..

ACCELEP4fluu $PECTRUM Pit 1NT = 13 (EL. 80f-0')

DAMPING *

.003 0.1 L.?

0.4 0.6 1.0 2..'

4.0 6.0 10 20 40 66 100

-l 25.000.+.........+'.....+...+..+..+.+.+.++.........+.....it..+..+..+.+.t ++.........+.....+...+..+..+.+.+.++

27.500,

20.000a 17500 A

i C

l c

h E

15.000

~

.. e L

- ffl A

.g g

-G i

tr.sco O

DB-I DE$lGM

[ OAMFi4G = 0.005 N

10.000~

G_

5 7.500 -

G2g SEISMIC EVENT

l DAMPING =0.005 l

%, k I

1000 j

t' l{

2.500 -

d e

/

^~

.I

-. c / ; I"'.

r /f

.t.........t.....t...+..+..+.+.t.t+.........t.....+e.e+..+e te+.+e++,........+e....+...+..+..+.+.+.++

Del 0.2 0.4 De6 1.0 20 4.0 6.0 10, 20.

40 60 100.

_ _ _.._fAEQUENCY__tHZ)__.

l I

l i

1 43 l

t.+

+.

to +

+o

} o. +.

o e.

+-

s e

e

[

l +

+

, o +.

M

+ *

.o F

.e

+

d

.+

s i

+.

o.

O e

e.

2,

+-

o. (

+

W

/

e.

.m e

g 7

Im J

(.

N

)

.... +

+.

oo

.O

8. o. N g

/

N 4

1 c,/

e G

j a

,.,c

's

.en

..s,,

4 9 e

-u. _ "_

f-

o. o

[-

es,.Z.o + f

+.

+1

_*%,5

+o aE.

l z

+

.a.c. o

-r

+

4

+,

/

o. +

+

n

. o.

i

+

4 e% e.

i

.e J

I z o'

+'

M e

m A

/

+

w l..

w m

o. +.

\\.

I na.

.ow

+

2 4$. d

>O e

Q I

.e J

o P. 58 O

+ z in, o

3 t 3

.N. o. +

to

. i.

(

. o. w a

W 4

+

"~

emp O'N.

80

.N ert les.

.a.

m nas z m

N

(

4t.

.\\,

o d

ut a

.o. +.e

\\

o.

.o

+s

\\.

+

j

.=

+'

'\\

+

ac

4. +.1 1

+

l..

+

e e.

gn.

i

)

+

IE O *.

.o

+

1

+

w l

2E.+

+..

.E.3 3 0 *

.O

.a

~ o.>-

+

n o

o. z..

m.a.

. ~.

+

u

+

.o c.

uu

.. +.

+

o -

- - - - ~ + -

- + - - - - -,

e

-e O

La a.

.i a

a 8

a i

a h

e

~

m v

1 s

~

<uum.,m..

oz em l4

FIGURE 18 l

I I

i

i -

j

{

j j

-{

r r

7 1

]

}

q

-]

1

}

~

t FL 04 RE(PONSE SPEC 18 A ciV!5 BE5$E '1'II4T AKF ~ STR ~45.QUAxE &5.1325

- ~ ~ ~

~

ACCELERATID-

~PECTRum PD. INT e ? ( 8L. 5'IG'-o') tMP!NG =

005 0.1 O.4 a.6 1.0 20 4.0 6.0 l'.

26 40 on.

100

+e.......e+.....+...+..+..+.+.+.++...e..

..+.....+.. +..+..+.+.+ *+ee.......+.....*...*..*..*.+.+.++.

G000 5400+

~._

4200 e

I 4.200 +

A L

I C

i i

E y

3go L

m

E i

4 m

a 1

5

'o I

l

~

t c.

DB-l DESIGkJ 2400 -

j

/ 04HFsA>s = 0.005 i

s

.t l.800 6 0.2 SE/SMIC EVENT f. {,

DAMPmJG = 0 005 j

l f

(200I

'p y. 3tf.\\

\\

i r

g

,oo.

./

\\.

\\./

i

,j s,

.s,,-

.........+.....+...+..+..+.+.+.++.........+.....+e..+..+..+.+.+.++.........+.....*...+..+..+.+.+.++

-o 1-

~

'0J~~

~0.4

'0.6-1.0- -

~~1 0 ~

4.0 ~ 6'.0 19 2n.

40, 66, 100 FREQUENCY (HZ) i 1

l i

{,

j

[

'{

[]

r 1

-- ]

]

}

]

']

]

7 T

]

PLOOR RESPONSE SPECTaA DAvt3 sESSE 1 Aux 3 LOG AREA 6 Eu-QUAKE A3.1325

~

. ACCELERATION _5PECTaun

_._tg { N_{_a _,3 (BL. 413'*O"),.

DAMP!PtG = _.005

=

0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 10 2

4.0 6.0 10, 20.

40 60.

100.

+.........+.....+...+..+..+.+.+.++......... 0 8

~B00 -

.....+...+..+..+.+.+.++.........+.....+...+..+..+.+.+.++

720 -

SGO-A C

C y

4g.

D L

I A

ni A

._ g f__

00 -

U O

3 n

N DB l DEstGM S20-arwino, aoos 5

2 40-o.2 y SEISMIC EVENT i\\

en ess ooos

.I y

i

.so -

f. lf.4 V

8-f.s.

.vv

.\\

'r'n.

So-

.J V

\\.(%

e-

,noo

+.........+.....+...+..+..+.+.+.++.........+.....+...+..+..+.+.4.6+.........+.....+...+..+..+.+.+.++

0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 10 2.0 4.0 6.0 10 20 40 60 100 PREQUENCY (HZj

t' g

4 l

l l

l I

l f

f--.

l i

1 1

I l

46 l

f I

)

i a

4 l

I I

1 1

j s

r.-

[

s' 8

i l

+

+

o+

+o

-o

-+

+y.

i

+

.i

+.

e o.

., o F_

,.e e

{

T

+1

.i o l

r

+

8

.I o

N W4 *+

d

+j.

.e. o o

O

.* o

.. o. N 2

f" g

,o, e.

i g

ln l e

Q L.' :

Q

}

a s o..*

.)

D

?

O.z. o. +.

L.g m

t q

EE

,I

)o.

r:

o-

+

lo. +.

L-

~'.

+g*

, W c,. :

m_-

+)

w i

o o

P,1.. +*;

+s.

N.

E,

.y 1

+

ss=-

s.

+

g i

s.

q l 2

P i

/

a e

k W

io.

. oK w.4.+

t..

a

+

-m 6N.

i ni h

t I

w z!

4 O

\\.

i t

o u

I I

4 l o. +-

i

'o I.

M.-

's

+I*

o,- +

, +

w

+i.-

in 4

\\

+

E i,

,o m

N.

(

+ !,o-

.+

ia o.

O l

f.a

+I.

er.

l

+i.

O 3 o.*

.o n., a,.

w o.

\\ +*.'.

v

.+

\\

in t

6 L *.

I m

\\ Z.

c -.=. +i I,._ o.i an..o.

s I

+i-

-o i

m t u,. +.f 7

e. -

L o

+

=

o 3

g k

e s

e W

v 5

m w

i

,r i

i i

1 l

< o o.. e <.--ez o <.a I

I j

clGURE 21 i

i i

l 1

i I

I (h

0.C.

~

FUiDi itsPORIE iPEUli A DAVII gEssE 1 Aux l' lIG ARE'A flW-QUAKffs',li25'-~"

~~

- L

. ACCEL,ERATIOS SPECTRUM.

PulNT = 5 (24.. G4E'-G*). DAMPING =

.005

.... _100. __

0,1 0.2 0.4 0.6 20 4.0 6.0 10 40.

60.

+.........+.....+...+

.+..+.+.+.+1.0+.........+.....+.....+..+.+.+.++...... 20.

3 l.__.

H.0g%F-

..+.....+...+..+..+.+.+.**

9.900-1.800 7 700-A C

C E

G. GOO.

1 L E'

E a

A A

?1

.5.500-N M 1 u n DB-l DEstGM ts DAMFf4G = 0.005 4.400-c 5

3.S00 0.2g SE/SMIC EVENT DAHPIUG = 0.005 2.200-h

,A.

.\\

ev v f./OO -

/

%5 b

/

\\ ^%N.Q

-q

+.........+.....+...+..+..+.+.+.++.........+.....+...+..+..+.+.+.++.........+.....+..-+..+..+.+.+.++

0.1 0.7 0.4 0.6 1.0 20 4.0 6.0 10 20.

40.

60.

100.

FREQUENCY (HZ)

=

~~

~-

r-

> c.

-t-FL10m RESPONSE SPECTRA DAV!5'sESSE 1 CtMT' INTERNAL STR Ew-QUAKE Am.1825

~ ~

~

ACCELER ATID's SPECTRUM PDINT = 12 ( E L. G SS'O')

DAMPING *

.005 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.0 20 4.0 6

10 20.

40.

60.

100.

.........+.....+...+..+..+.+.+.++.........+.....+...+..+..+.0 14.000--

.t +.++.........+.....+..+..+..+.+.+.*+,

(2.600 ~

l i1.200 +

I i

i h.8OO

A C

C TE 8.400 h O

L i

C E

4 R

I A

N A

Q)

_ M.... I 7.000-(u u

DB-l DEssGM N

l OAHPIMG = 0.005 G

i i

l 4.200 h o.2 g SEISMIC EVENT

{

DAMM6JG = 0.

05 7.800 h l

j

/

s Y

I.400-l

\\ A.

=,

o A L.

b'V V

'r.

N.%._

"*m.

._..?99.*9..,.

e....t.?.t.et.9??+tte.it.?t......+.....+...+..+..+.+.+.++++

.t...te..,?++..+..*,.+.t.+I++

0.1 0.2 0.4 06 1.0 20 4.0 6.0 10.

20.

40.

60.

100.

FRf gyp _NQf__(Hg)

I 9"'

e l

f h

I e

l i

r_

e

.c

+

M o+

O

+O

.c.e +

Q

+.O.

O

+

5

.+

O

+*

4..*

O.

22 gi

+

W W

t I

W

+ ' o.

c Q

4 l

+

~

g~

+..-

8 ; *.

.o

o. ".

-.:=...

.m:

r 1

~.

t

< u 7

SO N.N

+

i gZ FJ, w a.c..

+ : o.

- +

+

he K

+

g

+'

I&

44 f.. #,

yo

+4

+i t

o. *.

o

+ o.

e tw R ie.

/

,.p

'.' e f

auf g

+i.*

.O..

=

z, 1 -

m S,o. +.

+i -l

.o

.~.

art

, - +

w me

. u 8

+

+-

Z,

<W

<*y l

S.

. m

.x.

a w

s-

.s e

u W

'o F'.

+, a. c

' - + -

meu.

.ee

=

t m e.-

m=

an.

o g

r ;;

2 b.

ma W

. t

o. +,

s

+. o.

Q

=

N o

+,

+a l

'o

~

+

i

,T

+

n

+:

e.

- e. +.

o

. e.

W2 m

+.

4 a

c.

.o m

\\

l

+-

m

+.

m te s

m 4.

i zr.+

6

+.,

uL-la s. o.

.o

. m e.c.

a I

wu +

+

==

'.-f a

I ac w l

o 1

o r u. +.

. re an

+.

1 l

a.

o

.o wu u-

.m

,d-o 1

v.

=.+

i+.

o

_a____

O O

D 3

O O

O o

8 o

O 8

8 O

O o

o o

g a

3 a

s S

c 8

2 t

l

G u %3 W A W m' *e >

oZ Om g

i l

i I

I t

I I

FIGUM.

I I.....

l l

j I

u.

6.000-TLOOR PESPONSE SMCTRA DAVIS BESSE /

AUW. BLDG. G-VERTICAL - QUAKE ACCEL ERA TION SPECTRuht POINT S (EL. G2S'-O")

5.400-I

'k 4.800-1','1 O.2s SEl5 Hic EVENT

=j 4, goo.

DAMP /Ng = 0. 005 9

l' 3

q 3.600-8 l\\.

DB-l DESIGN g

Q DA MPING = 0. 005 m

g s.oco-I o

4

/

eo o

/

i w

u

,I ;I \\j n

uoo -

I I

\\

I

\\s g.soo-

0. l

\\

1

)v

,,1

\\

r' I

\\\\

!V I

y I.200

.\\

.I

,,l '

r}\\ r's,./

/

'*{A

/

'O *-

. GOO--

0.29 SEISHIC EVENT

.W~ _

OAMP/HQ= O O2

.e ;A-000-Y o!!

o'.2 o!4 ' O.'6'

'I.'o 2.' o 4)o'6.'o/o5 60$/N5 20.

~

FRE QUEN C Y (CPS)

/

4.000 -

FLOOE RESR34/SE SAFCTRA Davis MSSE 'l AUX. BLDG. Aff4 7 - MFET/ CAL querf ACCELERAT/OV SPECTRlM4 FC/MT* G ( EL. G4S'-O*)

3.G00-3.200-2.soo-g.

L, I

f' g,4cc-l a

oi 2.000-I-

I DB l DES /GN

/.c00-O. 23 SE/SMIC EVENT ll.

[16MP/NG = 0.005

/

'3./a N l4j \\\\

~-

b.

\\

l h'

t

.}

lY

\\'I

\\

I200~

V.N r~ n Y Y\\

\\

/

"J V

23 SEISMIC EVENT tI

\\.

800 -

DAMP /NG=0.02

/

1

\\

V J

~E'

(~

.400-s' UM-.. _.

. S' i

f ' '9

._ s -

.000-il l

l i i

...l l

il l i i il l

i i

0.1 02 04 04 l.0 2.0 40 60 10 20 40 GO

'00 FREQtMA/CY (CPS)

I

[4 _fl l

(: 'j

[ Q

"[

[]

fl

[]

[~ ~]

{]

{~]

l l

T' ]

j

-]

I

~]

S.OOO-fl002 RESPONSE SPIC TRA P&lN T S (S ESs s IEL. G42 '- G" )

D A Vis AREA 8 VERTICAL - QUAKE A CCELERA TION.TPEC TRA 2.700 -

/

2.40 0 -

o

0. 29 SEISHIC EVENT l

DAMPING = 0.005 m',

2. loo -

DB-l DESIGN 2

DAMP /MG = 0.005 m D

i i.soO -

i D2 I

9o l.

u gt I

's*

I aB

)

/\\

h i

"m

,,1 G b 1 ;l' \\

D i

\\

lv

\\

,i r

\\.200 -

1

\\. j> \\./

)

e I.,]^i'_s

\\,

1 7 i, ;

/

t

%o-lN V iy

%, q '\\ v j

/

\\/ V l

j '.,I A

1/

4 02g SEISMIC EVENT 600-

/,,1 /','

Q

_gggy,yg, 0. 02 h

t r,

/

&s

,,7 JOO-l

.-. s -

000',

y-0.1

,0.2 0.4 0.6 I.O 2.0 4.0 6.0 10.

20.

40 60.

10 0.

FREQUENCY (CPS)

. y_-- - ----

609)-

FLOOR RESPONSE SAcC724 DAV/S-nfSSE */ C1WTA/NMENT VESS. VERT / CAL-QUAEE ACCELERAT/CN SPECTRt>M POINT = /3 (EL. 808'-0*)

S.400 -

4.800-1 4.200 -

m f 3.@ ~

l-21 O

Q

-\\

SEISMICEVENT.I

't k

OIS

& 0000~

DAMP /NG *0005

\\_

y in g

to 9

cm 9

1 D

A' 0

2.400-1 DB-1 LWs/sg y\\

D e M P/ht> O.

.lll 1 023 SEISMIC EVENT a

}-

l8%~

DAMP /M= 0 02 r-

\\

s I

\\_ h l- ~i k

\\

\\1 t.ex -

fj

,.!'4 Y

/ V v -l J _

za

.)

\\'Q' g

^

(

. GOO-O//-

r c-

_.s

.000-7-

i l

l' 0/

02 0.4 OG

/,

2 4,o g,o

,,o y

4O Go (REQUENCY(CPlfl)

--n-----

= - - - -

w a

3.000-FLOOR RESPOMSE SPECTRA DAV/S.62SSE */ Con /TA/NMEMT /N)~ Sff. VE27/ cal-QUAkT dCcst EldT/OW SPfcTEL%f PC/NTs/2 ( EL. GSS'-0*)

2.4x -

f.'

2.100 -

?

SEISMIC EWNT * \\

0.23 R

DAMP /MGO.005

~

{

/.doo-3 e

n, i.e x -

ce-i orsnu u,

a DAMP /MG 0.005

A-f i

5 m

i A r' f i

i jv o.2, sessnic Eveur 1'

p.I(n DAMP /NG=0.02

(

\\

[.

b,"

,.m

[\\

l

\\

.10 0 -

/,^

'\\ ' I /I g\\

\\

.A.

/

tj

. Goo-u ia r

.W.

.300-s--

2 000-

'l l

l l

' ll l

l l l g

l g

l i i i

0./

0.2 0.4 0.G

/.O 2.0 4.0 6.0 10 20 40 GO

/00 FE&QUENCY(CPS)

I

.

ML19308C386

Text

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search